35
Raidz2 or btrfs for important document storage? (piefed.blahaj.zone)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I currently have a secondary pool (with raidz2) that I was originally going to use for my important documents, such as storage for Paperless-ngx, as raidz offers corruption detection and repair. The pool is encrypted.

However, I'm concerned about rebuild times (it's a pool of 4 22TB drives). Is btrfs a better choice for this use case, or should I just go with raidz like I originally planned?

Edit: I should have mentioned that I already have 4-3-2 backups configured - I'm primarily interested in the "self-healing" aspect of ZFS so that I don't have to recover from backups unless necessary, and to resolve corruption on the fly without me having to notice that a file is corrupt.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago

I should have mentioned that I was (and still am) using XFS for my primary pool. XFS has been great, I was just hoping for a solution which would make it so I don't have to hit my backups unless absolutely necessary (such as full array loss, for example). ZFS' data corruption protection is very intriguing, it's mostly the rebuild time and write speed that is making me think about doing something else.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent